Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[dblack]

It's all about equality. If I can't legally discriminate against you, you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against me. I can't refuse to serve a Christian, despite my deeply held beliefs about Christians, but you want them to be able to refuse to serve me. We should both be able to refuse to serve the other.

Disability is one of those minorities protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws, that's how.

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

It's about general freedom actually, not just religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Yes! Tell us about again about the 'case law', George. And the rabbits. Tell about the rabbits!

 

[bendog]

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

It's about general freedom actually, not just religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Yes! Tell us about again about the 'case law', George. And the rabbits. Tell about the rabbits!

But the laws are constitutional. Rational discussion has to begin with proven facts, and the pt was Ibentoken as usual follows his own separate reality. And, really, I don't see John "not Jay" Roberts taking on civil rights laws ... no matter how much he might dearly love to do so. As Seawytch posted convincingly, the public is not moving in that direction either.

 

[bodecea]

Either get rid of the laws that say I must serve you or add me to the list so you must serve me. It's that simple.

So you could get behind an effort to repeal PA laws?

Absolutely. I much prefer public shaming, incredibly funny Yelp reviews and running bigots out on a rail.

Big push to get rid of these laws is there? Anyone anywhere putting forth legislation?

(don't bother, the answer is no)

To me...it's like their calling for government to get out of the marriage business, but not getting behind any serious effort to do so.

 

[bodecea]

Its all about you, ain't it. and your dismissal of my point means you have no counter for it.

and now you are adding disability to it? Since when is that even remotely in the same discussion?

It's all about equality. If I can't legally discriminate against you, you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against me. I can't refuse to serve a Christian, despite my deeply held beliefs about Christians, but you want them to be able to refuse to serve me. We should both be able to refuse to serve the other.

Disability is one of those minorities protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws, that's how.

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

 

[dblack]

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

It's about general freedom actually, not just religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Yes! Tell us about again about the 'case law', George. And the rabbits. Tell about the rabbits!

But the laws are constitutional. Rational discussion has to begin with proven facts, and the pt was Ibentoken as usual follows his own separate reality. And, really, I don't see John "not Jay" Roberts taking on civil rights laws ... no matter how much he might dearly love to do so. As Seawytch posted convincingly, the public is not moving in that direction either.

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

 

[dblack]

It's all about equality. If I can't legally discriminate against you, you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against me. I can't refuse to serve a Christian, despite my deeply held beliefs about Christians, but you want them to be able to refuse to serve me. We should both be able to refuse to serve the other.

Disability is one of those minorities protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws, that's how.

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

Such regulations are still, nominally, bound by the concept of equal protection.

 

[Ibentoken]

It's all about equality. If I can't legally discriminate against you, you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against me. I can't refuse to serve a Christian, despite my deeply held beliefs about Christians, but you want them to be able to refuse to serve me. We should both be able to refuse to serve the other.

Disability is one of those minorities protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws, that's how.

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Forced servitude is illegal in America. This case isn't over.

 

[bodecea]

Again, your view is just "its all me me me me me"

Instead of just going to another ******* baker, its time to ruin them, and **** everyone else.

I can't refuse service to someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, country of origin, disability, etc...I guess it's all about "them, them, them" eh? They aren't tough enough to find another business so they have to have all these "special laws" protecting them?

Sound like you just think gays are icky and this gives you cover.

Do you agree that gay couples should pay for contraceptives for single women? Obamacare makes you do just that.

Meh....who cares....we, as tax-payers ending up paying for stuff we wouldn't do or use all the time.

 

[Ibentoken]

It's all about equality. If I can't legally discriminate against you, you shouldn't be able to legally discriminate against me. I can't refuse to serve a Christian, despite my deeply held beliefs about Christians, but you want them to be able to refuse to serve me. We should both be able to refuse to serve the other.

Disability is one of those minorities protected by Federal Public Accommodation laws, that's how.

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

A citizen doesn't forfeit constitutional rights when operating a business. You idiots keep forgetting about that pesky constitution.

 

[bodecea]

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Forced servitude is illegal in America. This case isn't over.

Forced servitude...... I wonder if the lunch counter workers at Woolworth's had cried "forced servitude" it would have helped their case any.............

 

[dblack]

Nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and in no way "violate" religious freedom.

The case law can be cited for you again if you missed it the first several times.

Forced servitude is illegal in America. This case isn't over.

Forced servitude...... I wonder if the lunch counter workers at Woolworth's had cried "forced servitude" it would have helped their case any.............

The Woolworth's cases were resolved years before PA laws were enacted, via public pressure and protest. Ultimately, Woolworth conceded without coercive mandates.

 

[bodecea]

It's about freedom. You don't have the right to force me to labor for you against my religious beliefs.

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

A citizen doesn't forfeit constitutional rights when operating a business. You idiots keep forgetting about that pesky constitution.

Of course they don't...just like a person doesn't forfeit their constitutional rights when driving. BUT...if you are going to get a license for such a business (or driving) there are legal rules you abide by. Everyone knows this.

I bet you won't cry "government tyranny" when the government requires a food establishment follow strict government health and safety standards in order to stay open.

 

[bodecea]

Forced servitude is illegal in America. This case isn't over.

Forced servitude...... I wonder if the lunch counter workers at Woolworth's had cried "forced servitude" it would have helped their case any.............

The Woolworth's cases were resolved years before PA laws were enacted, via public pressure and protest. Ultimately, Woolworth conceded without coercive mandates.

As it should be....but if the laws were in place back then...it would have been resolved without people being beat up, spit on, and thrown in jail.....right?

 

[dblack]

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

A citizen doesn't forfeit constitutional rights when operating a business. You idiots keep forgetting about that pesky constitution.

Of course they don't...just like a person doesn't forfeit their constitutional rights when driving. BUT...if you are going to get a license for such a business (or driving) there are legal rules you abide by. Everyone knows this.

I bet you won't cry "government tyranny" when the government requires a food establishment follow strict government health and safety standards in order to stay open.

I will. Because it leads to this kind of shit. That's why libertarians complained about this kind of stuff all long, because we could see where it would lead. To a society where the concept of liberty is reversed and instead of assuming general freedom we're supposed to appreciate whatever privileges the state gives us permission to exercise.

 

[dblack]

Forced servitude...... I wonder if the lunch counter workers at Woolworth's had cried "forced servitude" it would have helped their case any.............

The Woolworth's cases were resolved years before PA laws were enacted, via public pressure and protest. Ultimately, Woolworth conceded without coercive mandates.

As it should be....but if the laws were in place back then...it would have been resolved without people being beat up, spit on, and thrown in jail.....right?

You're not really familiar with how "laws" are enforced are you?

 

[Ibentoken]

Forced servitude is illegal in America. This case isn't over.

Forced servitude...... I wonder if the lunch counter workers at Woolworth's had cried "forced servitude" it would have helped their case any.............

The Woolworth's cases were resolved years before PA laws were enacted, via public pressure and protest. Ultimately, Woolworth conceded without coeyrcive mandates.

Poor thing is confused. That wasn't a religious rights case.

 

[Ibentoken]

And you having a particular business is your choice too...no one is forcing you to choose such a business.....BUT...if you do and get a business license, you have to abide by the rules of said license.

An analogy....you don't like the speed limit...you don't like driving on the right side of the road...you don't like stop signs.......too bad if you get a driver's license.

A citizen doesn't forfeit constitutional rights when operating a business. You idiots keep forgetting about that pesky constitution.

Of course they don't...just like a person doesn't forfeit their constitutional rights when driving. BUT...if you are going to get a license for such a business (or driving) there are legal rules you abide by. Everyone knows this.

I bet you won't cry "government tyranny" when the government requires a food establishment follow strict government health and safety standards in order to stay open.

You're all over the place.

 

[bendog]

It's about general freedom actually, not just religious freedom.



Yes! Tell us about again about the 'case law', George. And the rabbits. Tell about the rabbits!

But the laws are constitutional. Rational discussion has to begin with proven facts, and the pt was Ibentoken as usual follows his own separate reality. And, really, I don't see John "not Jay" Roberts taking on civil rights laws ... no matter how much he might dearly love to do so. As Seawytch posted convincingly, the public is not moving in that direction either.

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

 

[dblack]

But the laws are constitutional. Rational discussion has to begin with proven facts, and the pt was Ibentoken as usual follows his own separate reality. And, really, I don't see John "not Jay" Roberts taking on civil rights laws ... no matter how much he might dearly love to do so. As Seawytch posted convincingly, the public is not moving in that direction either.

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.

Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.

 

[bendog]

We're all aware of the Court decisions that have put us where we are. The question is where we want to go. And, to some degree at least, that depends on how the national conversation over these kinds of challenges pans out, eh?'

I'm just not that interested in proclamations of "ho hope" for positive change. Maybe you're right, but I think more often than not such comments are an attempt to shut down that conversation.

Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice

This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....

So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.

As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.

I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.

Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.

Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms. Fining the baker for being a boor strikes me as not much more civil that the baker's boorish behavior. But, I'm not climbing up on a cross over it. (-:

As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.